People who’ve not seen much of Tamil cinema might not recognize the action archive here. In the older Bollywood masala films there would be lots of blows exchanged before someone fell down though even there the ’sideys’ just required one blow or kick. Sometimes even a rough push would suffice! Now to be fair to Ghajini the big guy here also requires more time! Now I know the objection will be raised that Murugadoss did not adapt the Tamil properly but evidently the audience has had no objection to the fight sequences!

I would never suggest that there are no distinctions between a 70s Bollywood masala and the Tamil manifestations of such in the 80s or 90s and so forth. At the same time it is important not to attribute something one doesn’t like about the film to its Tamil source.

Though I’m not the expert on judging actioners, I tend to agree a lot with Devesh here. I too got the feeling that the action in Ghajini was too slick, stylistic to make real impact. The editing of the film is stupendous (how the film flies!) but it also tends to take away some of the raw passion with many of its slick cuts. Nothing lingers. That’s just my feeling.

What works for me a lot is the love story – beautifully done.

http://www.naachgaana.com/2008.....mrao-jaan/

agreed on the performances. its no surprise shabana azmi gives a great performance. abhishek was also great here. certainly one of his underrated performances. aishwarya not only gave her best performance ever, she looked her very best. i think she even looked better in this film than in “jodhaa akbar”. i haven’t heard anyone call aishwarya “plastic” in a very, very long time. to call her that now is crazy. anyone who still says she can’t act has to be off in the head, IMO.lol either that or that person is shockingly unfair in his/her bias against the actress. in other words, a HATER.

http://www.naachgaana.com/2007.....ridgement/

and the full review on UJ since this was first written for NG 1.0:

“It is an unfortunate consequence of an age addicted to popcorn
> entertainment that when a ‘real’ film with an authentic narrative shows up
> the critics and often the audiences are unequal to the task of absorbing
> it. The seductions of ‘cinema as joyride’, increasingly prevalent in all
> parts of the globe render the space for a proper filmic effort that much
> more constrained most of the time. The ethical responsibility on the
> viewer who truly desires quality cinema is therefore to patronize products
> even when these might turn out to be less than perfect. There are
> honorable failures that one must subscribe to in every field of artistic
> endeavor if one does not want cinema to simply resemble a system of
> stimuli. But if this choice has no made one really has no right to
> complain about the medicority that is dished out day after day even if
> often in big-budget extravaganza form.
>
> Umrao Jaan has received stunningly unfair reviews and is a perfect symptom
> of the situation I’ve been describing. J P Dutta has made a beautiful film
> that for all the indulgence of the director in terms of length nonetheless
> remains engaging throughout and demands a patience and even a certain
> stamina from the viewer as a prerequisite for the proper ‘encounter’ with
> this remarkable tapestry. In other words one must go to the film with a
> certain mindset expecting not just an enjoyable period piece but a rich
> cinematic experience that will often be challenging and will reveal its
> pleasures cumulatively.
>
> I should state here that for those complaining about the length I do
> concede that 20 minutes could very easily have been edited if not more
> without upsetting the flow of the film in any way. Having said that I
> don’t believe that those who really dislike the film as it stands would
> love it if it were somewhat shorter. Also I simply do not buy the argument
> that one can love the original and hate this one. Not because the films
> are similar (they are not at all so except skeletally) but because
> whatever ‘boredom’ one witnesses in the newer film is something that one
> will as easily experience from the far slower, far less dramatic, far more
> offbeat older version of the film. Very candidly I doubt most people who
> indulge in this exercise remember the original very well if at all they’ve
> seen it!
>
> But even the length is not an issue to the extent that there are no
> ‘unwanted’ plot elements here. It is true though that sharper editing
> would definitely have served the film in important ways.
>
> Dutta is in great control here and his strengths are myriad from the
> visual qualities florabundant in the film to the performances of most of
> the actors to the subversive elements of the story. The last especially
> are much more profoundly delineated than these were in Muzaffar Ali’s
> version. The music is not just an element within the story but often a way
> of enhancing and advancing the narrative. One would have to be rather tone
> deaf and in fact a quite poor reader of visual cues to not appreciate
> everything that happens in the numbers from the marvellous color coding of
> the sets and costumes to the awesome though often subtle gesturality of
> the central dancer as well as the moving lyrics at most points.
>
> Among the great achievements of the film is the remarkable ambience of
> Lucknow and some of the adjacent locales dealt with in the film. I think
> this is easily one of the most remarkable Hindi films ever made in terms
> of evoking this kind of ‘feel’ and atmosphere. Dutta is always disciplined
> enough to reveal only those aspects of the culture that are intrinsically
> relevant to his story and characters but so strong is his sense of detail
> that a whole world is captured from the privileged perspective of the
> brothel. It is a sort of ‘home and the world’ story and both in time open
> onto each other in significant ways.
>
> I have made a brief reference to ’subversion’ in the narrative and Dutta
> is very good at calibrating the obvious gender politics of the subject,
> marrying it to larger moral concerns, and ultimately providing a wider
> political canvas to everything that refracts the story using different
> outlines. Towards the end there is even an element of the ‘didactic’ here
> but it is quite welcome and it certainly is more suggested than
> over-bearing in any way.
>
> The performances in the film are generally very appropriate. Often the
> actors are good but equally they have been well cast. Shabana Azmi needs
> no plaudits this late in the day yet I must say that this is one of her
> very good acting jobs in a commercial vehicle. Dutta’s choice of Azmi to
> fulfill what is a central role in the film is an inspired one and Azmi
> brings exactly the right sneer and attitude to the role. An actor who
> gives a rather better account of himself that one might have believed
> looking at his other outings in the past is Puru Raj Kumar. Sunil Shetty
> in a limited part manages to suggest the ‘figure out of hell’ quality that
> Dutta presumably requires him for! In the rest of the cast there is no one
> who is necessarily noteworthy in these terms but everyone is quite
> adequate to the task with the ironic exception of the gentleman who serves
> as a stand in for the novel’s author and who in postmodern form gives us
> the film by way of being the only auditor to Umrao Jaan’s narration of the
> film. And who seems to admit far more failure with ‘words’ than his
> courtesan-heroine. It is perhaps appropriate that he should be so affected
> and so much of a caricature in his representation of the author!
>
> This brings me to Abhishek and Aishwarya. The former continues to dazzle
> as an actor and really commands attention in every scene he occupies. This
> is yet another ‘different’ role for him and he has just the right gravitas
> for the part, just the right subtlety for the role, just the right pitch
> for all the key moments. His is the most intriguing performance in many
> ways and he has a great moment where he is able to best even the
> formidable Azmi in the one meaningful scene they share.
>
> But this is quite obviously Aishwarya’s film and possibly her greatest
> performance. I say this with the full knowledge that she is not a ‘pure’
> actress but also with the understanding that cinematic expressiveness is
> not only about performance in a naturalistic sense but also about the
> iconic and the actor who can be more star than actor and yet be as
> effective on screen (often moreso) as the pure actor. This is easily the
> most ‘affecting’ role Aishwarya has ever done. She has often been termed
> ‘plastic’ with some justification but in the process what has been ignored
> is the enormous progress she has made since her early days in the
> industry. In any case this charge would be rather unfair if not outright
> dishonest if used for her performance here. She easily holds this film
> together in the title role and lends an enormous dignity to the character.
> While the story of a suffering courtesan might seem a bit of cliche at
> this point in time Aishwarya prevents the character (and by virtue of this
> the film) from ever descending into the maudlin (and here of course the
> other actors like Azmi and Abhishek must be credited as well as the
> director). As a viewer I always found myself ‘with’ her in the film. She
> also offers a remarkable foil to Abhishek, not least because of the
> contrasting acting styles of the two. And while this wasn’t very evident
> to me in the pair’s earlier outings here she makes a very charismatic pair
> with Abhishek. There is genuine chemistry on screen here. She is also
> helped by the fact that Abhishek is possibly more effective at conveying a
> certain sexuality than just about any other Hindi actor I can think of.
>
> What must also be mentioned with respect to Aishwarya’s performance is her
> exquisite grace as a dancer and he extraordinary command on the gestural
> from the use of her eyes to the movements of her fingers. There is clearly
> a complex choreography at work here that does not only focus on the dancer
> springing around on her feet but almost more on the language she employs
> by way of her gestures. And this of course is the essence of a classical
> courtesan. I think that people far more trained in classical dance forms
> would appreciate Aishwarya’s skills even more than I was able to in my
> impressionistic way. And the music about which enough has been said
> already in in my judgment as good a soundtrack as good be expected in
> these poor musical times for this sort of subject.
>
> In a related sense I was very impressed by Dutta’s command over the tones
> and undertones of sexuality throughout the film. And these are often laced
> with the sordid. There is sometimes a sense of unpleasantness to the
> proceedings, sometimes for obvious literal reasons. But even when the
> lovers are together there is an element of strangeness. This is partly so
> because Dutta never loses sight of the unequal power relations and these
> are implied at every turn of the narrative. But also because for all the
> romantic aspects of the love story, for all the comfortable sexuality that
> is so evident in the intimate moments the lovers share, the director never
> quite lets the viewer forget that for each lover ‘possession’ is implied
> in different ways. It is key to understanding the relationship that the
> romantic impetus from each side is very different in some ways. And this
> creates a sense of tension in the scenes which adds to the seductive
> quality of these moments.
>
> I have indulged in such a detailed review because my interests are partly
> polemical. I think that this is yet another example when the media has
> simply not been educated enough to be able to adequately analyse the
> extent of Dutta’s achievements. Or even read these in any meaningful way.
> But also because I hope to persuade people of any ilk that this is a film
> worth visiting, worth engaging with, worth thinking about. My review
> should not be taken to mean that I consider this a flawless film. Far from
> it. But I certainly do not see a serious one here. It is clearly not a
> film for everyone. But it will certainly reward those who are willing to
> give themselves over to a proper film experience as opposed to a ‘night at
> the movies’.”

TheSkeptic: Saket, my take on VVC is that Parinda is a masterpiece, including technically, but Eklavya left me cold. Its visuals are too ad-like, like something sponsored by the Rajasthan Tourism Board. It did not world-build in a way that would inveigle me in. I think the look needed to be infinitely grittier, JP Dutta-like. That would have been the apt environment to set off this fable-like story.

TheSkeptic: Fair enough, if the images conveyed meaning to you – cinematically. I’m speaking from a youtube viewing, and everything looked just too polished, perfect, with the grammar familiar from a certain kind of lush ad-filmmaking – a filtered, russet look etc. It didn’t “open” out the world for me, it seems hermetic, sealed off. Now the way JP Dutta does it always have characters from across the social spectrum, so the world feels instant empathic, real, even if exotic.

Saket: Interesting thoughts, TS. I think Parinda is great too. It was a terrific departure from the regular potboilers of the 80s, even if its stylized violence was IMO, bettered by RGV in Satya. But I do offer a dissenting view on Eklavya. The visuals, not to take anything away from JP Dutta’s repertoire, are so opulent that the royal look is taken care of. Its grandstanding on the order of Lawrence of Arabia, and yet there’s a keen eye present that suggests more through visuals, than dialogs. I’m of course speaking form past memory, but Eklavya, as muddled as it was towards the end, had a more contemplative feel to it. Most of that feeling, IMO came through the visuals of the film.

TheSkeptic: And that camel-train scene is inexplicable. What does it all mean? I can’t recall now but at that time I was thinking VVC had fussed it to the point of irrelevance.
28 Dec 08, 07:06

TheSkeptic: And beyond that maybe its our new action-scene education from Hollywood, but the language used – how it is edited together, and the sound – it all sits there, like a frog being dissected. It did not spring to life and sweep one away. And this I think is because cinema (like a drug!) needs to constantly progress its language since viewer-consciousness is constantly getting inured to it. Hence the desperation of the Bourne series, how to keep escalating the speed of the editing, sound, movement etc. to sweep away the jaded viewer? It worked there – for now.
Saket: The camel-train sequence exists on its own. I think it’s showboating on VVC’s part, but what showboating!
Saket: It creates tension and suspense that one can cut through a knife. It’s technique overpowering narrative, but if one’s invested into details like this, it has its own “intellectual” charm. I don’t mean that in a bad way, of course

TheSkeptic: When I say JP Dutta, I’m always talking of early JP Dutta, I can’t be bothered with Border or LOC, though I do like UJ (again because its world convinced me). His early films are just extrordinarily atmospheric and moody, while avoiding slickness or pictorialism-for-its-own-sake. Or rather prettiness.
28 Dec 08, 07:03

Saket: I haven’t seen Ghulami since a long time. I remember watching LOC but even that is a blur, right now. JP Dutta’s fascination with the desert is amazing, if anything else.

TheSkeptic: And beyond that maybe its our new action-scene education from Hollywood, but the language used – how it is edited together, and the sound – it all sits there, like a frog being dissected. It did not spring to life and sweep one away. And this I think is because cinema (like a drug!) needs to constantly progress its language since viewer-consciousness is constantly getting inured to it. Hence the desperation of the Bourne series, how to keep escalating the speed of the editing, sound, movement etc. to sweep away the jaded viewer? It worked there – for now.

TheSkeptic: When I say JP Dutta, I’m always talking of early JP Dutta, I can’t be bothered with Border or LOC, though I do like UJ (again because its world convinced me). His early films are just extrordinarily atmospheric and moody, while avoiding slickness or pictorialism-for-its-own-sake. Or rather prettiness.

“And that is why Ghajini was sucha pleasure. and my pleasure is doubled to know that Bollywood’s first 100crore netter would have been helmed by a someone from Tamil mainstream film background.”

Aamir also knew that he’d need someone from ‘outside Bombay’ to make authentic masala. Sad really to reflect on how a 70s tradition is so bereft of followers today in its own industry.

In a weird sense Bachchan too is responsible for this. He became so successful that his directors realized they didn’t need scripts, proper co-stars, good players in small parts, not even an A grade setup! Anything good work with him. Bombay therefore never made that transition to the 80s. What this decade contained for the most part was the detritus of the 70s. Ironically Bachchan’s ‘one man show’ has continued to inform star anxieties. Since Bachchan stars have been obsessed with doing films that rely on nothing more than their presence. For the most part they’ve failed of course but this has been a ‘parameter’ (SRK has been most the obvious example in this sense but also the most spectacular failure.. one thinks of Baadshah and Duplicate.. the Don ‘remake’ was perhaps entirely logical for him since he had always been attempting such!).

My reviews of Paruthiveeran and Virumaandi:

http://qalandari.blogspot.com/2007/08/paruthiveeran-tamil-2007.html

http://qalandari.blogspot.com/.....-2004.html

A fair point perhaps: someone like me appreciates Tamil masala because it testifies to the survival of something that no longer exists in Hindi cinema (i.e. my default is Hindi cinema, and as you know I am a “latecomer” to Tamil cinema). By contrast, perhaps to a “native” (recognizing how loaded and problematic that concept itself is), that same paradigm represents the “prison” that isn’t being transcended…

[Aside: for all their flaws, I would take the Vel, Paruthiveeran, and Subramaniapuram re-imagining of what Tamil cinema can mean; any day over the analogous "new
Bollywood of Rock On and what not. Seems more "organic" to me]…

Re: “Makes me wonder if this meticulously crafted image of a ‘thinking actor’ is anything but a facade. How else can one explain choices like Fanaa and Ghajini”

Aditya: Aamir has said on his blog that he really believes in films like Fanaa; I don’t think there’s any facade, since he has always been rather above board in his conviction as far as popular cinema in this register is concerned. In fact whether or not his roles are in Fanaa or elsewhere, Aamir always has a weakness for “populist” roles: check out Lagaan, Rang De Basanti, Fanaa, Rangeela, Raja Hindustani; even in Dil Chahta Hai he had the most overtly populist role. And the way he has structured his career he certainly likes to return to the “site” of older tropes every few films. This has been a pretty constant theme with him: Raja Hindustani, Ishq, Mann, Mela, Fanaa, Ghajini…no matter how “big” Aamir has become, he never has shown any sign of abandoning the paradigm. He doesn’t ONLY do one kind of film, but this is definitely one of the strands he seems to want to hold on to. The notion that the “thinking actor” means that Taare Zameen Par or Rang De Basanti is the “norm” is not something one can fairly read into his career — I think that reflects more the projection of some in the audience embarrassed by “masala” cinema than anything Khan has ever “promised” his viewers.

But that said, I don’t think this film can be “fresh” for anyone (like me or Zero) who continues to see a large number of Tamil masala films, and who’s already seen the Tamil Ghajini. It’s like what I said in my review of Dostana — the casual treatment of homosexuality is fascinating in an Indian film context, but eventually, that’s just a sociocultural consideration. Finally, the FILM has to work (for me).”

That’s a fair point Baradwaj except that I would perhaps be a bit more alert to the process of ‘translation’. I am unsure if a film can be neatly split into ‘pure narrative’ on the one hand and the ’socio-cultural’ on the other. That the film didn’t work for you (or Zero) is not at all what I’m quarreling with.

To reiterate what I’ve said earlier I think that this particular masala effort works very well as a trope for ‘de-masala-fied’ Bollywood. I would not suggest the same if Aamir had for example remade a Mahesh Babu film!

It’s interesting that you find this much superior to the Tamil version. It was great to get your thoughts on that, as I haven’t seen the original.

Thanks Satyam!

My own thoughts on masala in the context of Om Shanti Om:

http://www.naachgaana.com/2008.....a-wrestle/

While I have forever been indulging in elegy with respect to the Bombay film tradition of the 70s I do think that one must account for the different contexts within which the Tamil Ghajini comes about as opposed to its Hindi ‘remake’. When I saw the former I didn’t like it very much, I could think of many better films in Tamil along ‘masala’ lines. But in Hindi this tradition is more or less dead. And so Aamir’s attempt at such a genre becomes not just a ‘film’ but a larger exercise in summoning up dead ghosts. But why does Aamir select Ghajini as opposed to say a Vikram film or something like Kaakka Kaakka? My surmise is that Aamir realizes that the animus Hindi multiplex audiences have for action-masala can only be overcome by in a sense hood-winking the audience. The Memento element in Ghajini therefore provides him the perfect opportunity to do not just masala but ‘different’ masala. Again within Tamil cinema there are very many films offer such ‘edginess’ within genre conventions (not only action but also romance and so forth.. and this for a few decades now). But for Hindi the ‘conceit’ works. One cannot make a Saamy in Hindi. Because the media establishment and the most economically empowered audiences would desribe is as ‘regressive’ in the most unthinking way. So Aamir in my view displays a certain intelligence in choosing just this project.

“PS– On further reflection I do agree with you on Deewar and Trishul. They are popular cinema, perhaps even populist cinema, but they possess a single-minded focus that is at odds with the delightful, teeming multiplicity I associate with the term “masala.”"

“Baradwaj: your clarification helps. Some of the santization is undoubtedly due to commercial considerations: in the first place Aamir’s credibility is IMO needed to get people to come watch something like this in the multiplexes. But it would have been a bridge too far even for aamir if some of the trappings of more contemporary uselessness (think Dhoom 2) hadn’t been imported.

Aside: the interesting thing to ponder is this: back in the old days, and even perhaps to this day in tamil cinema, when one incorporated various formulaisc elements, the sense was that this had been done for commercial considerations, because the audience was used to a certain kind of formula. Here, however, we are at a pass where this sort of film is the opposite — i.e. its formula is precisely what the audience does NOT expect, making this in an odd way a dicier proposition than a Taare Zameen Par. The point I am trying to make (and that Aamir had very clearly spelled out on his blog a long time ago in connection with a discussion on Fanaa) is that Aamir seems to have deliberately approached this film as a project, as an ideological project to try and do a self-consciously masala film (had he just wanted to do a ’safe” film that can’t fail to be a hit, he would have done what he is going to do next: “three idiots” is about as safe as can be in these times; as the fate of Sunny Deol’s and Salman Khan’s careers show, the pricing out of a certain demographic from movie theaters, combined with changing tastes (not only in the audience but in the Mumbai-centric star kids and industry-family scions who make so many Hindi films these days) makes Murugadoss’ “paisa vasool” been there/done that far more new than Hirani’s films! I watched this film with a friend whose reaction was telling: he loved it, and added that it was like nothing he’d seen in years… One might well have different views on the extent to which the attempt has succeeded (in a sense Satyam’s account of the memory palaced itself recognizes that it is too late, that we are at a funeral as it were), but the commitment is fascinating to me…”

Satyam: Memory Palace, eh? Very nice

Qalandar: Nice set of thoughts. And yes, the mythical element is a huge component of the good-versus-evil masala movie. But I’m not sure Trishul and Deewar are “masala” movies, exactly (at least the way I look at them).

These are modern-day versions of mythical tales (”modern” in the sense that Deewar, for instance, adds psychological dimensions to the moral ones). They (along with the great Khakee) are more along the lines of “dramas” — great, classical-tradition dramas that borrow certain elements like “one-versus-many fights” from the “masala” movies.

I think I use “masala” in the sense of our equivalent of “grindhouse.” (And I think Zero does too; correct me if I am wrong, though.) I wouldn’t label Arjun, for instance, as “masala” as the element of cockeyed, cheesy disreputability isn’t there (which was there in Family, courtesy that scene with the lion on the screen).

That’s why I agree with Zero (not on the background score, though) when he says this is too polished. And that’s why I said this takes itself too seriously for something so fundamentally silly. As a hardcore “masala” movie (and with another hero, say, the 80s Rajini or Mithun), this might have been great. Aamir just doesn’t convince me as a “masala” film hero, at least the way I define the term.

“PS– “deafeningly loud background score”?! I must have slept through the entire decade of the 1980s: baba this was practically a hallmark of the masala films! Not to mention the crazy overuse of the close-up (which we see today only in JP Dutta’s films, and, of course, in Ghajini)

To a certain extent the problem might be that people often take (e.g.) the best Bachchan films — e.g. Deewar, Trishul — as representative of an entire tradition. These were of course the best films, hence their status as ever-relevant classics, but these were NOT representative of the bread-and-butter film. Certainly part of the tradition, but at the apex of it, whereas Ghajini hearkens to the middle bulge of the pyramid as I see it.”

“Re: “I’m still trying to figure out (not a snide remark, it truly beats me) how all this — the explicitly stylized violence, the snazzily done action sequences, the music video-style songs, the deafeningly loud background score, the lead hero’s 8-pack abs makeover — is but an all-out throwback to good old Indian film masala.”

“Explicitly stylized violence” is a hallmark of the Hindi masala tradition — we are, after all, talking about films where the fights were as lovingly choreographed as the songs! I’m a bit puzzled that THIS of all things should be taken as an example of “inauthenticity”; some of the choreography has been updated to pass the 2008 audience’s cringe-test, and the style is undoubtedly inflected with the Tamil cinema over the past decade, but there is nothing un-masala about that.

To answer your broader question, what allies this film to popular cinema of an earlier age is the conviction that the love story at its core matters enough to fuel a crazy outsized revenge saga; the middle-class ethos mostly banished from contemporary Hindi cinema, and so on (I’ve explained at greater length on this in my review, but Asin’s character is not the sort of thing one ever finds in a mainstream Hindi film any more — one continues to find her in Tamil cinema — be it Yashraj, Dharma, Bhansali, or anyone else’s films; and I completely agree with you on the six pack — that was the sort of thing that made Ghajini an unlikely candidate for such a throwback film, that it stubbornly is)…

There is no doubt in my mind that at his best Santoshi is a far superior interpreter of the tradition than Murugadoss (Khakee remains the best attempt to re-invigorate the paradigm I’ve seen); my disagreement was not with the notion that this is not the highest quality masala, but with the notion that it is somehow “fake” and inauthentic and takes itself too seriously, in a way that the real deal would not. There I disagree.”

“Ah, I was feeling all alone until I read this piece. Couldn’t agree with you more, Baradwaj. Just like in the Tamil original, the romantic track is pretty much the only thing that I found quite enjoyable. (Yet, I can’t believe that many have found this to be the emotional core of the film that resonates through and overarches the rest of the film. Seriously?)

On another note, I’m still trying to figure out (not a snide remark, it truly beats me) how all this — the explicitly stylized violence, the snazzily done action sequences, the music video-style songs, the deafeningly loud background score, the lead hero’s 8-pack abs makeover — is but an all-out throwback to good old Indian film masala.”

“Qalandar: But this isn’t about liking masala films. I gave Family one of the few sympathetic reviews because I genuinely like how Santoshi mines masala territory. And he’s DEAD SERIOUS about it. This, here, is more or less an action thriller hybrid of the masala tradition — but far too stylized and sanitised to be taken for the original, as Zero rightly points out.”

“Superb write-up here Baradwaj — although I found the film a lot more palatable than you did, to an extent because of aamir khan, but to perhaps an even greater extent because I actually don’t mind the Masala film (Tamil or Hindi) at all

Where I would disagree is the notion that this film takes itself too seriously: I would argue that the better way to put it would be that this film does not take itself for a lark — precisely in keeping with the conventions of masala cinema, which does not engage with its own “excess” via the mode of spoof; or even “hey this is crazy but let’s go along with it anyway.” The master Manmohan Desai had a bit of the latter, and perhaps Shankar does too in Sivaji; and the former is how most contemporary filmmakers can engage with it. But I would argue that is not the default mode. Quite the contrary: the “mythic” cannot be harnessed (as “masala” routinely does) unless and until the cosmic significance of the proceedings is appreciated (both by the audience and within the film). I think the fundamental problem with the Ghajini script is that the script is simply not as good as the central conceit. I wrote in my review that this is a script where things “happen” rather than one where events are propelled forward, with the result that a script that could have been a great and engrossing tale is destined to become, instead, “about” the star at its core…”

http://www.desipundit.com/baradwajrangan/

Arun: I might revisit yet again the Tamil (in bits) after watching the Hindi!

This movie will have tremendous repeat viewing – for sure – that will add to the nos. in a huge way……Ghajini is no more just an event, it has become a “must-participate-festival” now….

Satyam when i was watching the Tamil ghajini, i thought exactly the same, “Wheres Maddy ?”

i have a few complaints(on the weak side: jiah khan, the titular villainous character, some action scenes), other than that, the film is very well-made and engrossing. i never really felt the length, to be honest. great action film and definitely one of the best films of the year. great work for aamir khan!. the guy is one bad mofo…lol!

I think the concept of a ‘remake’ is in general regarded much more negatively in India than it is in the West. Now of course I am not including here purely business decisions to remake hits from Tamil to Telugu and vice versa. Or what Boney Kapoor did in so many instances. Aamir could have had a hit doing many other things. He took on Ghajini as part of an ongoing project where he hopes to offer a course correction for the industry. It has never been Aamir goal to just make award worthy films (this charge on him has always been a little absurd). He’s been interested in good films that are nonetheless rooted in the tradition. He did not need to make TZP to just do ‘different’. He could have had ‘different’ hits in other ways also. Similarly he didn’t need to do masala to get a big commercial hit. What people often miss with him is his genuine sincerity with each project. Also because his judgment is so impeccable, because he seems to be able to make a hit out of just any subject the risk element is often underrated. Any other star with the very same projects wouldn’t be able to get half as much success out of them. because with other stars most of the projects beginning with and including Lagaan would just evolve in a very different way.

On the remake aspect I tend to disagree. First off it is not quite frame to frame (even leaving aside some significant differences in the last half hour or more there are other technical floruishes, narrative elements that are an upgrade of the original). Also remember that the original director was retained for a reason. If Aamir wanted a completely different vocabulary I think he would have opted for a different director.

Leaving this aside I am not sure whether ‘frame to frame’ every discredits a film that is otherwise good. I am also disagreeing with Sandy once again on this. The fact is that there are remakes all the time all over the world and even when they’re frame to frame the films in question differ substantially. This is true for everything from Hollywood remakes of older films to Bollywood’s appropriation of Tamil cinema (anyone who’s seen Boney’s remakes knows this!). Because the moment you remake either over a period of time or from one industry to another the contexts change. Therefore the film changes. In this sense the lead being different is a very big part of it. If in this very film we’ve all just seen if we had Abhishek or Akshay or SRK or Hrithik or Saif or whoever, the film would be vastly different in each case. It’s not just about who would ‘act’ better but the fact that a different lead would change the very fabric of the film. A lead in a good film is part of the narrative, not someone who’s simply inserted into one. What if we remade DDLJ ‘frame to frame’ but just inserted Hrithik into the movie? The film would be completely different and in my view inferior.

If you recall this was one of my great Don objections. How could one remake a film that offered one of the greatest star triumphs of the greatest star in Bombay film history? But the same could be said for other films that become very iconic.

To put it in other words (and I’m responding more to Sandy here) if a film is totally effective on its own terms the fact of its being a remake cannot be held against it. My own view of course is that this is much better than the original and incidentally I revisited the Tamil a couple of days before watching this. Having said that if there are people who preferred the original I would find it comprehensible. Again it’s a question of what contexts one is more receptive to. Had this been a remake of a Vikram film I would have been much more skeptical.

Excellent writeup here, Satyam! I didn’t like it as much as you did but this still is a great read.

I do think that might be Hyderabad.. in one of the early scenes in the film I think I also detected a sign/poster in Telugu.. it happens very fast and so you probably miss it..

In SR this was a very big flaw at one point where they’re supposedly in the interiors of Maharashtra and a couple of signs in Telugu are very visible..

I saw it a second time, and certain things came into clearer focus; 1) ARR’s background score is no more than serviceable, but the kaise mein kahoon and guzaarish instrumental refrains over the course of the film have great impact; 2) the action works better here than in tamil — can’t believe aamir made this psychotic role seem plausible. Damn effective; 3) Rawat has put on more weight relative to the Tamil film, and while he will never be a very good villain in my book, he’s more dangerous here than he was 3 years ago; 4) the setting of the climax, all those narrow alleys (is that hyderabad? Felt like it was the area near golconda fort), what a wonderful atmosphere! Definitely outdid murugadoss’ initial efforts. And ties into your evocative title on memory palaces: the detritus of contemporary pop culture litters these alleys: posters, abandoned TVs, spare parts…

Thanks Devesh..

Sorry to say ILG, you are anything but INDIFFERENT! Its absolute hatred and resentment of the utmost personal nature coming across in your statements!

Ok, I believe you, but on this thread, while expressin Ghajini views, the need for those comments? I dont see a thing about SRK here, no fans saying anything, nothing at all? So completely unprovoked and unreasonable IMO.

Anyways, dont take my feeling in the other sense, I respect your likes and dislikes, just that I was surprised that even in this thread, and in your Ghajini review, you just cant seem to not bash SRK/RNBDJ!

“Comparisions to SRK’s recent films- OSO and RNBDJ are inevitable and the differences glaring. One is a rather flaky, fake, spoofy-but not spoofy kind of cinema where one can hardly get involved in the proceedings with a trmemendous feeling of a let down and betrayal as a movie goer at the end and the other is total ‘paisa wasool’ kind of cinema where one stays engrossed throughout and comes out with a deep sense of satisfaction. Certainly dont want to knock the people who love the former but for me the choice is obvious. Even the difference in the six-pack says it all.
One is a scrawny,limp-dicky six-pack where as the other is a real six-pack. Obviously some people do not kno the difference between pectorals and breasts or what they ignorantly refer to as man boobs.”

Really reading this it seems SRK is on your nerves, and you just cant let him out of ur mind, so every comment of urs includes him. Give it a break yaar, Ghajini is a good movie, enjoy it, why ruin it by thinking of the CRAP RNBDJ and SRK? or is it that you like Ghajini just because RNBDK/OSO/SRK are crap?

ILG, Agreed on all counts. I too wish the villain had been changed though I think he’s weirdly better here than in the Tamil original. By the way one of the somewhat idiotic things about that film is the fact that the villain is a set of identical twins by the end!

And yes I was thinking about OSO too yesterday. That film never really had the soul of masala as I talked about in my review on the film. This film does. Leaving this aside I also agree (the implicit point you make) that if one does not like Ghajini at least reasonably then one would also never be a fan of many of those commercial glories from the 70s. One either does not have that connection and/or one is not likely to have it.

But absolutely the film is totally satisfying and what is equally satisfying is the reception this film has got. My suburban theater was 100% full and there were extra chairs put up for some people at the back! And there was quite a grand reaction at the end! Of course we know just how historic the opening has been. Aamir has really delivered the ultimate slap! He has done it on his own terms and he has out-initialed everyone!